On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ews.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses,
range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

The magazine you quote must have been comparing a MiG-29 (which is short
legged) with the F-18 (which isn't exactly long-legged), but to state that
no Russian
fighter carries anything like the internal fuel of a US fighter is no longer
true.

And while the Foxhound isn't exactly a "fighter" it carries a buttload
of fuel too.